This particular topic " ASSAMESE and BANGLA script controversy" is put forward to you all for a threadbare discussion. The controversy arises here when Unicode in its literature has made a glaring mistake by encoding a couple of characters unique to ASSAMESE script viz. 09F0 and 09F1 the Assamese letter 'Ra' and Assamese letter 'Wa' respectively as BENGALI Letter 'Ra' and BENGALI letter 'Ra' having different structural descriptions. We the native Assamese people fail to understand why Unicode has resolved to describe (till now) three numbers of amorphous BENGALI 'Ra' (!) s [ including the actual BENGALI letter 'Ra' 09B0] when the first two are unique to ASSAMESE script with distinct sounds and uses and in fact nothing to do with Bengali script or language whatsoever.

Let me put the things in to the point queries (if you know pls reply)1. Why Unicode has destroyed the sovereignty of Assamese language by publishing that Assamese language is written with a borrowed script ?

2. Which of the Unicode's own guidelines being ignored by Unicode while naming the scripts ?

3. What does Unicode want to signify when it mentions the name of a script as 'Bengali and Assamese' on its Code list webpage hyperlink button which when clicked takes us to a pdf file U0980 where pages are with page head Bengali and all letters described as Bengali letters ?

This particular topic " ASSAMESE and BANGLA script controversy" is put forward to you all for a threadbare discussion. The controversy arises here when Unicode in its literature has made a glaring mistake by encoding a couple of characters unique to ASSAMESE script viz. 09F0 and 09F1 the Assamese letter 'Ra' and Assamese letter 'Wa' respectively as BENGALI Letter 'Ra' and BENGALI letter 'Ra' having different structural descriptions. We the native Assamese people fail to understand why Unicode has resolved to describe (till now) three numbers of amorphous BENGALI 'Ra' (!) s [ including the actual BENGALI letter 'Ra' 09B0] when the first two are unique to ASSAMESE script with distinct sounds and uses and in fact nothing to do with Bengali script or language whatsoever.

Let me put the things in to the point queries (if you know pls reply)1. Why Unicode has destroyed the sovereignty of Assamese language by publishing that Assamese language is written with a borrowed script ?

2. Which of the Unicode's own guidelines being ignored by Unicode while naming the scripts ?

3. What does Unicode want to signify when it mentions the name of a script as 'Bengali and Assamese' on its Code list webpage hyperlink button which when clicked takes us to a pdf file U0980 where pages are with page head Bengali and all letters described as Bengali letters ?

Realize that I am not a member, officer, or otherwise officially representative of the Unicode Consortium in the slightest, but I can offer insight into most of these questions:

1) Unicode names all code points by script, and will only ever mention a language when necessary to distinguish characters that would otherwise have identical names. The fact that Bangla and Assamese share a typographic tradition, and that the script is known as Bengali in common English parlance was the only consideration when it was named. It is your politicization, and only your politicization, that has even the slightest to do with the sovereignty of a language, whatever such a term could even possibly mean. Note that there is no Hindi script. It's called Devanagari, because that is the common English name of the script. Note that there is no Russian script, because the common English name of the script is Cyrillic. Sometimes the script shares a name with a language, like Arabic, even though it is used to write hundreds of languages. Sometimes it doesn't. From the perspective of the standard, it just plain doesn't make a lick of difference. The only thing that matters is what the common English name of the script is, because the standard is written to be as simple and intuitive as it is possible to make a collection of every written form of communication in the history of the human race.

3) The links contain an addendum because of the protestations of people like yourself who mistake the descriptive nature of Unicode names as a prescription for use. The block names (the headers on the PDFs) are a normative property of a set of Unicode characters, and cannot be changed by anything short of time travel. Likewise, the characters within that block all contain the immutable, normative name of the script, which in this case is also the immutable, normative name of the block.

4) Unicode cannot change character names. Period. They made a promise that character names would never be changed, and two decades worth of software have been created which depend on that promise. I kid you not, but it is at least within the realm of possibility that changing the names of these characters could disable all Bangla and Assamese content on the internet. It is that serious. Changing character names breaks computers. We literally have characters whose names are spelled wrong, and several characters that have each others' names, and they ALL still have the wrong name. They cannot change. Ever.

5) They shouldn't. The request to do so is based solely on a complete misunderstanding of what the Unicode Standard is.

6) Time travel back to the early '90s and bring your concerns to the committees that were negotiating the merger of the Unicode Standard and ISO/IEC 10646.

7) From the Unicode perspective, there is no Assamese script. There is an Assamese language, and there is a particular writing system used to write the Assamese language. But that is not a script by the Unicode definition. Likewise, there is no Bangla script. There is a Bangla language with a particular writing system used to write it. If you unify the two together, along with the writing systems of other languages that utilize a writing system sharing the same typographic tradition, you get a unified Bengali script. By the Unicode definition.

You can protest that it should be different, but that is what Unicode does - it unifies writing systems into scripts. They did it with all the variants of the Latin script (Fraktur, Gaelic, modern Vietnamese, Icelandic, etc.). They did it with Han ideographs (Japanese, Chinese, Korean, and old Vietnamese). They did it with Cyrillic (Russian, Serbian, Komi, Abkhaz, etc.). They did it with the Canadian Syllabics (Cree, Carrier, Inuktitut, Athapascan, etc.). They did it with Arabic (Arabic, Urdu, Farsi, Kazakh, etc.). They did it with Katakana (Japanese, Okinawan, Ainu, Taiwanese, etc.). They did it with Tifinagh (Tuareg, Adrar, etc.) Are you seeing a pattern here? Basically every Unicode script is a conglomeration of several languages' writing systems, and the script names are all over the place. They literally don't mean anything, beyond being a standard means of referring to a group of characters. The names technically could be gibberish, but they decided that they would make it understandable, so they limited themselves to names that actually mean something to the large, international, English-speaking world, and that meant a Bengali script. I hate to have to say it, but get over yourselves. Unicode is not the place for your political fights. It's not the place to establish your cultural superiority or antiquity. It is not the place to stake out an ownership claim on a shared literary medium. It is a tool enabling every person in the world to enter the computer age, and the dedication of the companies, officers, and employees of Unicode to expanding information access to all the world's people, not to mention scholars and researchers of long extinct languages, is absolutely unimpeachable.

Unicode is not a political forum. It is not an ideological battleground. It is not a place to get the respect that was denied to you and your people by the British Raj ten generations ago. It is a tool that enables you to share your literary heritage with the entire world, and preserve your linguistic tradition for generations to come. You can decide to place your efforts on preserving that linguistic and literary tradition, or you can waste your time arguing for vanity changes to a standard that can't be changed. I know which one I would choose.

So far as I am concerned, I am not even a software personnel and I have absolutely nothing to do with Unicode, its usasge or anything that it offers to anybody be it good or bad. I just know that it (Unicode) has established a standard ( like standards of measurement in the field of science and technology). But while doing so , it has taken the "Common English Language" as a medium of information, the information that it sought to give to the large,international, English speaking people. Ok , I know while naming the binomial scientific names of the plants and animals,one scientist did the same thing by taking a "Latin" language dictionary as the look up tool. So now if we are to take English language as the look up language , the best and most trusted dictionary available internationally ( to us who are not native English speakers) is that published by the Oxford. Isn't it ? And there you never find "Bengali" being defined as a noun that names a script or alphabet. You may check " Bengali" " Assamese" and "Devanagari" in that dictionary and make out the differences.

You may define what "Common" English is . Does it follow the Oxford ? Should it follow the Oxford ?

So far as the term "Sovereign" is applicable to a language , English doesn't qualify for this adjective. Probably the "British Raj" still likes to think " Assamese Language " as part of their "Common wealth".

I may be sounding political but I guess politics did matter in the early 90's in unicode.

Here is my latest query No 8. As per ISO/IEC 10646:2010 (E) Final Committee Draft (FCD) Annex L (informative) Character naming guidelinesGuideline 6 states that" In principle when a character of a given script is used in more than one language, no language name is specified. Exceptions are tolerated where an ambiguity would otherwise result."

Therefore it would have been appropriate not to use the language name "Bengali" for naming all those common characters in the code chart U0980. Did it not create more ambiguity when Unicode resolved to name even the unique Assamese characters 09F0 and 09F1 as "Bengali" ?

Query No. 9 What may be the remedy now ?Query No. 10 As Vanisaac fears that any remedial action at this moment may jeopardize the complete Bengali and Assamese content in the internet, I think the problem may not arise at all if a separate block for Assamese script is defined ( as may be submitted by our agencies involved in this area ) that would also include "Khya" , a separate Assamese Character. Developers should certainly follow this new block for Assamese specific applications.We can see unicode is already redundant with multiple hexcodes for same shaped character.

Here is my latest query No 8. As per ISO/IEC 10646:2010 (E) Final Committee Draft (FCD) Annex L (informative) Character naming guidelinesGuideline 6 states that" In principle when a character of a given script is used in more than one language, no language name is specified. Exceptions are tolerated where an ambiguity would otherwise result."

Therefore it would have been appropriate not to use the language name "Bengali" for naming all those common characters in the code chart U0980. Did it not create more ambiguity when Unicode resolved to name even the unique Assamese characters 09F0 and 09F1 as "Bengali" ?

Query No. 9 What may be the remedy now ?Query No. 10 As Vanisaac fears that any remedial action at this moment may jeopardize the complete Bengali and Assamese content in the internet, I think the problem may not arise at all if a separate block for Assamese script is defined ( as may be submitted by our agencies involved in this area ) that would also include "Khya" , a separate Assamese Character. Developers should certainly follow this new block for Assamese specific applications.We can see unicode is already redundant with multiple hexcodes for same shaped character.

Is this possible ?

10646:2010 says nothing about excluding the script name, and, in fact, you will find that it is a naming requirement to include the script in a character name. In addition, the clause you cite is 17 years younger than the encoding of the Bengali script, so it doesn't apply. For the last time: The name Bengali describes a script, NOT A LANGUAGE in Unicode. Any time you see the word "Bengali", it is not referring to the Bengali language. U+09F0 and U+09F1 are named Bengali characters because they belong to the Bengali script. All characters belonging to a specific script, by policy, begin with the script name. Period. End of story.

Encoding a brand new block because you don't like the name is not going to happen. Accepting that a naming issue is grounds for completely splitting a script means potentially encoding 11 new scripts for Assamese, Bishnupriya Manipuri, Daphla, Garo, Hallam, Khasi, Mizo, Munda, Naga, Rian, and Santali, all with identical core characters, not to mention the how many thousands of languages that use the Arabic, Latin, Thai, Hebrew, Myanmar (Burmese), etc. The potential for security breaches alone are staggering, and any standards committee that would even entertain doing so would be insane. Any characters similar in appearance, but encoded separately, do so for very specific reasons: 1) Characters that otherwise would have been unified were encoded separately in pre-existing standards, and needed to maintain separate Unicode identity in order to allow for lossless data conversion. This can not happen any more, due to the stability of NFK normalization since version 4.1, March 2005. 2) The characters have different mappings when undergoing casing, normalization, or any other standard character conversion. For example, B, Β, В, and Ᏼ, (Latin, Greek, Cyrillic, and Cherokee) lowercase to b, β, в, and nothing. Do Bengali characters used to write Assamese have different case mappings than Bengali characters writing Bangla and the other languages, above?

Are you talking about ক্ষ? That is encoded as Kha + hasant + Ssa.

PS, my understanding of the script name "Bengali" is based on it being the common writing of the Bengal region - now West Bengal and Bangladesh.

Ok , you said that is a character naming guideline so that it does not apply to naming a script. If you read me right , I am raising the issue of wrongly naming a script by Unicode. Character naming comes thereafter. You may realize how terribly the things went wrong after one wrong (that I softly called a glaring mistake) was done like1. That all the characters from 0980 to 09FB are named “BENGALI” when the word Bengali should not have been used in any circumstances since “BENGALI” is known to all as a name of a language. “Bengali” was included in the Oxford with a definite meaning that it is a language far earlier than this Unicode standard was established. I think you should not deny that fact.2. Even characters 09F0 and 09F1 were named and included in Bengali block which caused someone being asked to search for London in a map of Germany.Vanisac says Bengali describes a script and NOT A LANGUAGE in Unicode , some more queries arises hereQuery No 11. What does “Assamese” signify in Unicode ? Specifically in the code chart web page button “ Bengali and Assamese” , what does “ Assamese” signify there ?Query No 12. Which word in Unicode signify the Bengali as a language ?

Ok , you said that is a character naming guideline so that it does not apply to naming a script. If you read me right , I am raising the issue of wrongly naming a script by Unicode. Character naming comes thereafter. You may realize how terribly the things went wrong after one wrong (that I softly called a glaring mistake) was done like1. That all the characters from 0980 to 09FB are named “BENGALI” when the word Bengali should not have been used in any circumstances since “BENGALI” is known to all as a name of a language. “Bengali” was included in the Oxford with a definite meaning that it is a language far earlier than this Unicode standard was established. I think you should not deny that fact.2. Even characters 09F0 and 09F1 were named and included in Bengali block which caused someone being asked to search for London in a map of Germany.Vanisac says Bengali describes a script and NOT A LANGUAGE in Unicode , some more queries arises hereQuery No 11. What does “Assamese” signify in Unicode ? Specifically in the code chart web page button “ Bengali and Assamese” , what does “ Assamese” signify there ?Query No 12. Which word in Unicode signify the Bengali as a language ?

You need to understand. It doesn't matter how wrongly something was named whether it is a character or an entire script. There are four characters, U+0E9D LAO LETTER FO TAM, U+0E9F LAO LETTER FO SUNG, U+0EA3 LAO LETTER LO LING, and U+0EA5 LAO LETTER LO LOOT that are just plain wrong. The first one is actually fo sung, the second fo tam, the third lo loot, and the fourth lo ling. There's also several misspellings, like "brakcet" instead of "bracket". The Latin Letters OI are actually called "Gha". Latin Letter Open E is actually the Latin Letter Epsilon. Everybody else knows that there are characters with the wrong names, and they have learned to accept it. You are going to have to learn to do the same.

As part of the process of naming and encoding the characters, they had to decide on the script name, because the script is a normative property of characters, and must be the first part of the name of all characters in a script. Let me repeat: In order to encode characters in a new script, you must name the script something, as the script name is a normative property of every character. In order to encode ANY character, you must determine its normative script. In order to name a character, you must determine its script, as the first word(s) in a character name must be the script name (followed by LETTER, SIGN, MARK, etc). In order to name a character in a new script, you must name that script something, so that you can use that script name to begin the character name. Most importantly: These things must continue to be true, so the script cannot ever be renamed, because the characters would then not begin with their script name, and character names cannot ever be changed to match a change in the script name.

Please reread that last sentence. Script names can never be changed because character names must start with their script name, and character names can never change.

No one is saying anything about the Oxford English dictionary, except you. To be clear: In 1993, Unicode had to come up with SOME name for a script. They chose the adjective Bengali, as a general adjective for things from the Bengal region. They might have called it Eastern Nagari, they might have called it Assamese, Daphla, Munda, Quijibo, or Zzzzzzzzzzzzz, except they didn't. They chose a name that made sense to them. You can argue till you're blue in the face that they should have called it something else, but they called it "Bengali". That is reality, and it's never going to change. You can say that it was culturally insensitive, you can say it is an extension of British imperialist violence, you can claim that it is a product of vast disinformation about the history and culture of the script, you can even prove that it is empirically wrong, but even if EVERY LAST ONE of these things were absolutely, unequivocally, factually true, WE STILL CAN'T CHANGE IT!

For point 2, it is illegal to not start a character name with the name of its script, unless it is script=common - ie, punctuation, mathematic operators, symbols, etc. No Exceptions. Braille is a script value. As such, both U+09F0 and U+09F1 are correctly named, starting with the "Bengali" script name, + "LETTER", then proceding to a description of the characters.

No 11: Unicode does not officially recognize languages at all. The web page is not part of the standard, and the link name is purely informative. Similarly, the only time the word "Assamese" occurs in the standard is in the informative part of the script description in chapter 9, and the informative character descriptions of U+09F0 and U+09F1 in the code charts. The major languages that use the script are customarily listed in script descriptions; however, this is neither a prescriptive, nor comprehensive listing. Similarly, the bulleted character descriptions are purely informative as well, usually included in order to avoid confusion of some sort. If you want to add languages to the list for a script or character, just submit your correction, and the editors will decide whether it's appropriate and correct, because any listing of languages is in no way official, and does not have to be approved by the Unicode Technical Committee or ISO/IEC.

No 12: Likewise, "Bengali" never refers to the language in the standard, except in the list of languages in chapter 9. At the same time, it is stated that the preferred language name is "Bangla". But again, this is not a normative property of the standard, merely a general description of the usage of the script.

I don't know how to be more clear. In every normative (official) part of the Unicode Standard, the word "Bengali" only ever refers to the script. If you see the word "Bengali" and think of the language, you are wrong. Let me repeat that: It is FACTUALLY WRONG to interpret the word "Bengali" as a language anywhere in the Unicode Standard unless it is explicitly the "Bengali language" (ie, in the first paragraph of ch 9). Why? Because no normative part of the Unicode Standard officially recognizes ANY language. Apparently, since 2010, ISO-10646 (and hence Unicode) has even gone to the extreme of prohibiting language of use to disambiguate character names in a script - you used to be able to have character names like "*Deseret letter French O".

A brick layer was constructing a high wall brick by brick standing on a ladder and when he was far above the ground he climbed on the top of the wall he was constructing and kicked the ladder down . Well , the mistakes that you have elucidated may be simple clerical mistakes or have crept in due to some oversight. Acceptable but these needs to be corrected as well. But the wrong of absurdly naming a script can’t be a clerical one or due to oversight. You are very clear to tell that it was a well thought collective decision of a group of people who are now constrained by its own set of inviolable rules that they ignored while framing the standards but now trapped in an obligation to protect even the wrongs, though clerical or due to oversight or otherwise as this case of Assamese-Bengali fuss. See I am using the word fuss here only to emphasize that this wrong may not be a cause of concern for many people, including me, who may or may not in the active business in the world of script or who can adapt to constraints the way you have done. You said a rule 17 years younger than the standards does not or can’t be applied to the later, so other queries arise hereQuery no. 13 Whether the rules exist for the standards or standards exist for the rules in Unicode ?Query no. 14 How come the rules become a dynamic entity and the standards that it sought to create is expected and protected to be static ?Query No. 15 Is this possible on the part of Unicode to instead of protecting the names of all the thousands of characters ,it just protects the shape of a character ( that may be used in many languages or adaptable by many script less languages in future ) like a logo identifiable by concerned users or prospective users and the Hexcode for that shape ? Query No. 16 If I am not a Bishnupriya Manipuri, Daphla, Garo ,Hallem ,Khasi, Mizo , Munda, Naga Riyan or Santali, how can I know which particular characters are used to write these languages and which are not ? And If I am any of the above, I will identify only the shape and see the Hexcode of a character and use it. The descriptions, definitions in words or word like conglomeration like “BENGALI” provided by the Unicode for those characters hardly make any sense for me or even for a machine. Why the standards dispense with these useless stuffs or even protecting them?

A brick layer was constructing a high wall brick by brick standing on a ladder and when he was far above the ground he climbed on the top of the wall he was constructing and kicked the ladder down . Well , the mistakes that you have elucidated may be simple clerical mistakes or have crept in due to some oversight. Acceptable but these needs to be corrected as well. But the wrong of absurdly naming a script can’t be a clerical one or due to oversight. You are very clear to tell that it was a well thought collective decision of a group of people who are now constrained by its own set of inviolable rules that they ignored while framing the standards but now trapped in an obligation to protect even the wrongs, though clerical or due to oversight or otherwise as this case of Assamese-Bengali fuss. See I am using the word fuss here only to emphasize that this wrong may not be a cause of concern for many people, including me, who may or may not in the active business in the world of script or who can adapt to constraints the way you have done. You said a rule 17 years younger than the standards does not or can’t be applied to the later, so other queries arise hereQuery no. 13 Whether the rules exist for the standards or standards exist for the rules in Unicode ?Query no. 14 How come the rules become a dynamic entity and the standards that it sought to create is expected and protected to be static ?Query No. 15 Is this possible on the part of Unicode to instead of protecting the names of all the thousands of characters ,it just protects the shape of a character ( that may be used in many languages or adaptable by many script less languages in future ) like a logo identifiable by concerned users or prospective users and the Hexcode for that shape ? Query No. 16 If I am not a Bishnupriya Manipuri, Daphla, Garo ,Hallem ,Khasi, Mizo , Munda, Naga Riyan or Santali, how can I know which particular characters are used to write these languages and which are not ? And If I am any of the above, I will identify only the shape and see the Hexcode of a character and use it. The descriptions, definitions in words or word like conglomeration like “BENGALI” provided by the Unicode for those characters hardly make any sense for me or even for a machine. Why the standards dispense with these useless stuffs or even protecting them?

Let us be completely clear. The Bengali script was NOT mistakenly or wrongly named in any way. It is a completely appropriate and suitable name. It is descriptive, unique, and evocative. Any suggestion otherwise a willful denial of reality on your part.

The fact that you have never once cited a specific name that the script should have been called all those years ago is quite telling. It is a simple fact: there was no commonly used name for the general Bengali script in 1993. In order to include that script in Unicode, one had to be determined. "Bengali" remains to this day a very good name for that script, which is, I think, what really irritates you. For whatever reason, you hate being grouped in with the Bangla language, and the fact that your perfect, beautiful language has been coöpted in the common thinking to the despised Bengali is a personal and deadly affront to your honor and the noble history of your people and language. Unicode is not the place to right the wrongs of history. This crusade of yours is vanity at the basest level, and I have spent too much time dealing with it already.

13: The rules exist for specific reasons, most of which are technical in nature. Most rules are adopted based on experience, or on a specific request from the software community. Stability policies are implemented so that software can be written that won't be broke tomorrow.

14: Most rules are drafted because the lack of the rule led to a less-optimal outcome before. This is no more important than in a standard that guarantees that characters, once encoded, will never be moved, renamed, removed, recased, remapped for compatibility or composition, recatgorized, or otherwise treated fundamentally differently in the future than it is today. When you make something for posterity, you sure as heck better learn from past experience.

15: No. Unicode is not some feel-good, "Ooh, look at all the pretty letters!" collection. It is a technical standard that enables the modern world to work.

16: The major computing companies spend a lot of research time trying to answer just that question. Conventions for writing a given language are almost always fluid, and vary among a language community. There are some writers who use the circumflex in English to write words like "rôle". Other diacritics are dependent on the education and background of the writer. I always write "naïve", "coöperate", "jalapeño", and "forté". Are ô, ï, ö, and é used to write English? A lot of people would say "no", and they would be completely justified in doing so, but that's obviously not universally true.

The point? How is Unicode supposed to say what is and is not used to write a particular language, when the native writers can't agree? What characters do you use to write your language? Figure it out; it's not actually that big a mystery. If you look over the code charts, you should have a pretty good idea of which characters are and are not used to write your language. They've put in all sorts of little hints and tips in the code charts to help you. They wrote a whole introduction and description of every single script in the standard to help you figure out just that question. But it's not their job to prescribe to you what you should and shouldn't use to write your own language. They've simply given you an incredible set of building blocks, described in excruciating detail how those blocks build words, sentences, paragraphs, and pages. Your job is to determine which blocks are appropriate to your uses. Their job is to go out and make sure that every writing convention they can find can be represented and exchanged, and they go to extraordinary lengths doing just that.

Note that there are no questions that need to be answered in my response. Please take this as a hint that further correspondence on your part is not welcome and will not be reciprocated.

I think it is the right time on my part to make an explicit remark in this post to you, Vanisaac, that if you feel in a slightest manner that you are spending or wasting your valuable time responding to my queries, you better know what you should do.

And if you read me well and yourself too, it is already clear that the naming of the concerned script as “Bengali” is a well thought, collective decision of a group of people in charge of Unicode and you need not repeat it anymore.

Rather, my concern here is the wilful denial of reality on the part of Unicode to face up to the fact that their well thought collective decision to name that script as “Bengali” and not “Assamese” although the latter (Assamese script) being proven to be a superset with unique, extra letters 09F0 and 09F1 was something that was surely avoidable provided they could overcome the fanatic lingual propagandists with some back ground research and come up with the truth. Surely that has not happened till now and I should make it explicitly clear that failure on the part of Unicode is certainly not a factor that can cause any sort of dishonour to the noble history of our (Assamese) people, its sovereign language and script. Rather, it may be realised that the honour and acceptability of Unicode is certainly at stake at this part of the world because of this proven guilt which at the basest level can be termed as a theft of two letters from the Assamese script by some who are or were in charge of this standardization, who now have no face to face the furore against their foible.

I may be wrong but I went by vanisaac’s declaration in the beginning that s/he not being a member, officer or otherwise officially representative of the Unicode consortium in the slightest. But his/her “Let us be completely clear” beginning statement and his/her “not welcome” comment in his/her last post indicates s/he may be speaking or advocating for a group or lobby in a possessive mood, if not for Unicode. So far I am concerned; I am certainly speaking for my language community. My queries are, in general, forwarded to be given a thought upon and certainly not directed to any particular person to respond (or reciprocate) in a reiterating manner. They are for the purpose of coming up with some possible improvisation that can be made to Unicode which will make it truly scientific and technical, not infected by “common” or “layman” type interpretation of characters possibly getting rid of all the stuffs that should not be part of the standard or which is not standard or true without going for a radical plan B.

Therefore

Query No. 17 Why Unicode standards should not be revised or replaced when newer and newer information is available about the scripts and characters ?

Query No. 18 Was Assamese language and its script completely unknown to the world even for those who were doing research for such a standardisation?

Query No. 19 How much is the Unicode’s claim on a character which for time immemorial is in public domain and in use by specific communities for writing? “Its invention of the Hexcode for the character” , “its invention of the arbitrary description/definition for that character” ,or “the shape of that character” ?

Query No.20 Does Unicode authorities object to terming the Hexcode standards devised for the characters by it by any other name instead of “Unicode” ? If not , why it should not ?

It's time to close this discussion. From the start it's been an exchange between only two parties, one of which has expressed their desire to terminate it. Nobody else seems to have an interest to contribute.

At the same time the tone has deteriorated and is in danger of becoming personal, which is not the kind of discussion the Moderators are willing to tolerate here. To allow some cooling off, this topic's been locked.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Quick-mod tools:

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum